Border Guard: "Backdoor" Way for Bush to Remove Troops from Iraq
--5/16/2006

the Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications

1.Border Guard: "Backdoor" Way for Bush to Remove Troops from Iraq
Following President Bush's Monday night prime time address on immigration, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ruminated to Chris Matthews: "Could he also be kind of back-dooring changes in the personnel totals in Iraq with this because, as Dick Durbin did point out in the Democratic response, an assignment of 6,000 National Guards troops is not just 6,000 guys going to the Southwestern borders of this country, it involves a lot more people and could provide at least a reason to bring people back from Iraq and Afghanistan out of the Guard. Could it not do that? Could he not be, in a sense, saying that?" Matthews called Durbin "generous in his math" in estimating 150,000 National Guard members will be needed over two years to maintain 6,000 on the border, before Olbermann again prodded Matthews with his contention: "Don't they have to come from Iraq? In other words, could this be the way, you know, as I said, a backdoor way for the President to say, 'Well, I've got to bring these people in for this pressing urgent issue on the Mexican border and we have got to just coincidentally reduce troop levels by removing the National Guard from Iraq and Afghanistan?'"

2.First Lady: Media "Enjoying" Playing Up Bad News for President
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos aired on Sunday's This Week, First Lady Laura Bush rejected the notion the media are "unfair" to her husband, but citing how the press puts low approval polls on the front page and how those she meets around the nation aren't nearly as downbeat as the media portray, she charged that "I think they're maybe enjoying this a little bit. I mean, that's what it seems like." To which Stephanopoulos, surprised by the suggestion, exclaimed: "Enjoying it?" Mrs. Bush elaborated: "That's what it seems like a little when I read it in the paper. Because it isn't really what I see everywhere. I mean, I travel all around our country. I go to every part of our country, and what I see is that Americans are standing with our troops. They want them to succeed. They want them to be successful. They want the Iraqi people to be successful. They want the people in Afghanistan to be successful, and they want to rebuild the Gulf Coast. I mean, that's what I see everywhere in our country."

3.Hume: Missing Info Leads to Anti-NSA Phone Database Poll Finding
Contrasting an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Friday, which found 63 percent considered the NSA's phone number database an "acceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism," with how a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday found 51 percent opposed to the program, FNC's Brit Hume noted how the front page USA Today story on the survey acknowledged "its findings quote, 'may differ [from the ABC poll] because questions in the two polls were worded differently.'" Hume affirmed: "They sure were. USA Today's poll question does not mention that the NSA database program does not involve listening to or recording telephone conversations, while the Post poll question did mention that."

4.CNN's Westhoven Yearns for "New Political Leaders" After Election
It's not very often that a reporter for a major cable news network will openly express their desire to see political change, but viewers of CNN's In The Money on May 13 heard just that. CNN Headline News correspondent Jennifer Westhoven was interviewing the New America Foundation's Len Nichols, along with In the Money host Jack Cafferty and CNN business contributor Andy Serwer, on the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Following Nichols' conclusion that the Bush administration was "far right of the edge" on health care policy, Westhoven wrapped up the interview by expressing her desire to see "some different political leaders at some point, maybe after the elections, who are looking out for people who are getting left out by some of these programs."

Following President Bush's Monday night prime time address on immigration, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ruminated to Chris Matthews: "Could he also be kind of back-dooring changes in the personnel totals in Iraq with this because, as Dick Durbin did point out in the Democratic response, an assignment of 6,000 National Guards troops is not just 6,000 guys going to the Southwestern borders of this country, it involves a lot more people and could provide at least a reason to bring people back from Iraq and Afghanistan out of the Guard. Could it not do that? Could he not be, in a sense, saying that?" Matthews called Durbin "generous in his math" in estimating 150,000 National Guard members will be needed over two years to maintain 6,000 on the border, before Olbermann again prodded Matthews with his contention: "Don't they have to come from Iraq? In other words, could this be the way, you know, as I said, a backdoor way for the President to say, 'Well, I've got to bring these people in for this pressing urgent issue on the Mexican border and we have got to just coincidentally reduce troop levels by removing the National Guard from Iraq and Afghanistan?'"

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth caught the exchange from about 8:32pm EDT during MSNBC's May 15 shortened Countdown coverage of Bush's speech and Democratic response:

Keith Olbermann, after Matthews listed areas, such as Iraq, where Bush has lost the public: "Do you think, and not to get too cynical too fast in the wake of the President's comments, but do you think that to any degree, given that this speech was not even scheduled until last Friday, that this was an attempt to change the political headlines from the subjects that you just mentioned." Matthews: "Yes. That's what I was thinking all weekend. I kept thinking look what this president's looking at. He's looking at a war for which he has a minority support now, where most Americans think it was a mistake to go to Iraq. He's looking at a gas price situation, again an issue he can't change in the near term if he can change it at all. So he has two big bits of bad news out there. He's got a Vice President who seems to always show up as the hard guy in the administration, rightly or wrongly. I think he might be right on the NSA issue. In the days just after 9/11, I'm glad we were using our electronic ability to check on what's going on. But in terms of the CIA leak case and having the Vice President's own handprints and writing right on that article shows him getting very close to being part of this thing. I think the President couldn't have picked an issue which he'd be popular on, but at least now he can pick something he's not hated on by most Americans. But I'm with you. I think he wanted to change the subject tonight." Olbermann: "Could he also be kind of backdooring changes in the personnel totals in Iraq with this because, as Dick Durbin did point on in the Democratic response, an assignment of 6,000 National Guards troops is not just 6,000 guys going to the Southwestern borders of this country, it involves a lot more people and could provide at least a reason to bring people back from Iraq and Afghanistan out of the Guard. Could it not do that? Could he not be, in a sense, saying that?" Matthews: "Yeah, I just did the math. I thought Dick Durbin, although he's a very partisan Democrat, I thought he was generous in his math. He said that this would be 150,000 Guards people over the next two years at the rate of 6,000 every couple of weeks. Well, he figured it out on the basis of 6,000 every month. If you do it every couple of weeks, there would be like 300,000 National Guards people over the next two years, which is a huge complement, obviously up against a very overreached National Guard to begin with, so I think the present use of the number 6,000 was a very minimal way to do it. I thought also, if you look at his other number, 6 million stopped trying to get into the country illegally. Now we're bringing down a paltry 6,000 at a time to face a job which is already creating 6 million turned back over a period of time. That's a hell of a small complement to bring to the border in a support capacity." Olbermann: "Don't they have to come from Iraq? In other words, could this be the way, you know, as I said, a backdoor way for the President to say, 'Well, I've got to bring these people in for this pressing urgent issue on the Mexican border and we have got to just coincidentally reduce troop levels by removing the National Guard from Iraq and Afghanistan?'"

Matthews answered that he doesn't know if we'd have to do that, but it "will be more of a stretch" for the National Guard.

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos aired on Sunday's This Week, First Lady Laura Bush rejected the notion the media are "unfair" to her husband, but citing how the press puts low approval polls on the front page and how those she meets around the nation aren't nearly as downbeat as the media portray, she charged that "I think they're maybe enjoying this a little bit. I mean, that's what it seems like." To which Stephanopoulos, surprised by the suggestion, exclaimed: "Enjoying it?" Mrs. Bush elaborated: "That's what it seems like a little when I read it in the paper. Because it isn't really what I see everywhere. I mean, I travel all around our country. I go to every part of our country, and what I see is that Americans are standing with our troops. They want them to succeed. They want them to be successful. They want the Iraqi people to be successful. They want the people in Afghanistan to be successful, and they want to rebuild the Gulf Coast. I mean, that's what I see everywhere in our country."

The relevant exchange on the May 14 This Week, from the interview pre-taped at the White House:

George Stephanopoulos: "How about inside the White House? How do you see your role? And has there ever been a moment particularly in the last year where you've woken up and said, 'you know what, we've got to get a handle on this, we have to turn things around'?" Laura Bush: "Well, sure, of course, I wake up and think that a lot when I see the bad poll numbers on the front page of the newspaper. I didn't, back when poll numbers were good, I don't think they put them on the front page but now the bad ones are there." Stephanopoulos: "You think the press is unfair?" Laura Bush: "No, I don't think it's necessarily unfair. I think it's just, you know, I think they're maybe enjoying this a little bit. I mean, that's what it seems like. Stephanopoulos, taken aback: "Enjoying it?" Laura Bush: "That's what it seems like a little when I read it in the paper. Because it isn't really what I see everywhere. I mean, I travel all around our country. I go to every part of our country, and what I see is that Americans are standing with our troops. They want them to succeed. They want them to be successful. They want the Iraqi people to be successful. They want the people in Afghanistan to be successful, and they want to rebuild the Gulf Coast. I mean, that's what I see everywhere in our country."

Contrasting an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Friday, which found 63 percent considered the NSA's phone number database an "acceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism," with how a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday found 51 percent opposed to the program, FNC's Brit Hume noted how the front page USA Today story on the survey acknowledged "its findings quote, 'may differ [from the ABC poll] because questions in the two polls were worded differently.'" Hume affirmed: "They sure were. USA Today's poll question does not mention that the NSA database program does not involve listening to or recording telephone conversations, while the Post poll question did mention that."

The ABC News/Washington Post question: "It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

"Acceptable," answered 63 percent; "unacceptable" said 35 percent.

For how ABC's World News Tonight covered the finding and for a link to a PDF with the full results, check the May 15 CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org

The question in the USA Today/Gallup survey: "Based on what you have heard or read about this program to collect phone records, would you say you approve or disapprove of this government program?"

51 percent answered "disapprove," and 43 percent responded "approve."

That question was preceded by this one which outlined the program without, as Hume noted, making the point that no one listens to the calls: "As you may know, as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism, a federal government agency obtained records from three of the largest U.S. telephone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans. How closely have you been following the news about this: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"

For the top of the front page May 15 USA Today article, "Poll: 51% oppose call database," see: www.usatoday.com

Hume's May 15 Grapevine item on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume: "Fifty-one percent of Americans now say they disapprove of the National Security Agency's database of domestic phone calls, that according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll. The number from a Washington Post poll taken last week, just after the story broke, in which 63 percent of Americans called the NSA program an 'acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism.' The paper reports, USA Today reports its findings quote, 'may differ because questions in the two polls were worded differently.' They sure were. USA Today's poll question does not mention that the NSA database program does not involve listening to or recording telephone conversations, while the Post poll question did mention that."

I got the full questions in the two polls from the Polling Report's page for surveys on terrorism. Check: www.pollingreport.com

It's not very often that a reporter for a major cable news network will openly express their desire to see political change, but viewers of CNN's In The Money on May 13 heard just that. CNN Headline News correspondent Jennifer Westhoven was interviewing the New America Foundation's Len Nichols, along with In the Money host Jack Cafferty and CNN business contributor Andy Serwer, on the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Following Nichols' conclusion that the Bush administration was "far right of the edge" on health care policy, Westhoven wrapped up the interview by expressing her desire to see "some different political leaders at some point, maybe after the elections, who are looking out for people who are getting left out by some of these programs."

Len Nichols: "...I would say it's very important to keep a distinction between the Bush administration's philosophy and Republican philosophy. In my opinion, the Bush administration is the far-right of the edge, and most Republicans are not there, which is why Chuck Grassley, the chair of Senate Finance, among others, have worked very hard to try to correct the mistakes of this implementation process and I think as we go forward we do have hope of bipartisan success." Jennifer Westhoven: "Len Nichols, director of the health policy program at the New America Foundation. Thank you very much. And we will hope that there'll be maybe some different political leaders at some point, maybe after the elections, who are looking out for people who are getting left out by some of these programs. Thank you."

Jack Cafferty, CNN's resident curmudgeon, couldn't contain his true feelings on this topic either. Cafferty charged that the prescription drug benefit plan was little more than a gift to pharmaceutical companies, and that providing benefits to senior citizens was not the main objective of the program.

Nichols: "...What this shows is that a pure market unaided system leaves the most vulnerable behind and we have to think harder about how to make rules so that won't happen." Jack Cafferty: "But then, I mean, this wasn't a surprise to anybody. This thing was drawn up by the big pharmaceutical companies. This thing was done with the idea of protecting their bottom line, and, oh, if we can help somebody save a couple of bucks along the way, okay, but we're not going to put Big Pharma in jeopardy."

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.